Yes, protect the innocent. But we mustn't be drawn into another war we cannot win, writes MAX HASTINGS

The West faces intense pressure to take military action in Iraq to stop further onslaughts by Muslim jihadis — yet also deep public scepticism about the prospect of getting into another war in the region.

Right-wing Tory backbenchers such as Liam Fox are calling for action, while recently retired General Sir Richard Shirreff denounces the British government's response thus far as 'meaningless posturing'.

But both President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron are cautious about embarking upon major initiatives — and who can be surprised?

President Barack Obama has been cautious about embarking upon major initiatives so far

Cameron has returned to Downing Street from his Portuguese holiday to consider a menu of military options for Britain to support U.S. operations in Iraq, without the prospect that any of them will look good to a national leader facing a general election in nine months.

He will almost certainly do something. But it remains to be decided whether this will amount to further gestures or substantive military action.

It's easy to grasp the humanitarian case for going to the aid of Christians, Yazidis and Kurds who find themselves in the path of the murderous fanatics shooting and beheading hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people in their path for the mere crime of being 'un-believers'. It is much harder to identify attainable objectives for a Western military intervention.

Share this article

Share

The U.S. has thus far launched air strikes against concentrations of Islamic State jihadis in northern Iraq, started to deliver humanitarian supplies and promised to start arming the Kurdish peshmerga forces. Britain has dispatched modest humanitarian aid and committed up to eight RAF Tornados to surveillance missions against the militants.

It has also announced that Chinook helicopters will be deployed by British forces to airlift to safety tens of thousands of the Yazidi, who are in desperate peril. But that in itself presents related challenges.

I would expect the SAS or SBS to be deployed on the ground to provide local protection for the Chinooks flying humanitarian relief missions. But even so, these aircraft are not impregnable, and their use means some of our formidable Apache attack helicopters will probably also have to be deployed, along with as many as 200 troops. With every serviceman or woman who sets foot in Iraq, the danger of British lives being lost increases in this cauldron of murderous confusion.

Even so, the PM has decided thus far there is no need to recall Parliament. He is, of course, painfully aware that last year he called for the West to launch bombing raids against President Assad of Syria, only for a Parliamentary vote to veto the idea. Now, of course Assad's forces are fighting furiously against Islamic State — our common enemy.

On the other side of the Atlantic this week, critics of the Obama administration are attacking the White House for lacking a policy. This is certainly the case. But the huge problem for the U.S. and its allies is that it's easy to brand Islamic State as dangerous barbarians who should be stopped — but far harder to identify any regional group except Iraq's Kurdish minority who deserve the West's backing.

It is a relief to Washington that the former Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki, a deeply divisive Shia leader hated by his own nation's Sunni Muslims, has been forced out under intense pressure. The Americans desperately hope his successor will provide an anchor for his fellow countrymen, before Iraq dissolves irretrievably into anarchy.

But there seems little doubt that in the next few days, the West must act to ensure that Kurdistan and wider regions of Iraq are not overrun.

So what are the military options for Obama and Cameron?

The most provocative and controversial would be a full-blooded ground-force commitment of U.S., British and other allied troops to defeat Islamic State. This seems wildly unlikely. Western public opinion would be deeply hostile. Since the jihadis straddle Syria as well as Iraq, it would be necessary to fight in both countries. We are all desperately weary of regional wars.

More practical is the idea of arming the Kurds. This seems the least contentious option, because almost everybody recognises Iraq's Kurdish minority as civilised, moderate and democratic — rare virtues in the Middle East. The French have already announced today that they will be providing arms. Britain now says we will help to transport weaponry to the Kurds, but not that we will supply them directly.

What will, however, be essential, is for some Western military personnel to be deployed on the ground to train the Kurds. Modern weapons of all kinds are highly sophisticated and cannot simply be distributed with an instruction manual, like children's toys. It is imperative, therefore, that America at least flies in personnel who can strengthen the Kurdish forces as quickly as possible — hundreds of U.S. advisers are believed to be already on the ground.

That said, it will be tough to persuade neighbouring Turkey that the Kurds should be armed, because the Ankara government is morbidly fearful that an independent Kurdistan will become a magnet for Turkey's own disaffected Kurdish minority.

The Kurds do deserve our support against the jihadis. But we should recognise that they cannot destroy them militarily — only defend their own territory in north and eastern Iraq.

A third possibility is for an intensification of air strikes against Islamic State. This will almost certainly happen, with likely British participation, and will help to keep IS at bay. But to make air strikes effective, special forces will almost certainly have to be committed on the ground to identify targets. Moreover, defence cuts have left the RAF poorly equipped to fly ground-support missions, for which its Typhoon aircraft is ill-suited, and the Tornado is very old.

A regional drama has begun that will take years to play out. The West neither can nor should seek to determine its outcome

Lastly, we have the option of sending ground troops for the specific and limited purpose of securing 'safe havens' for the Kurds and other minorities suffering persecution. Intense planning for this option is taking place on both sides of the Atlantic. If the situation deteriorates in the next few days and weeks, Obama and Cameron will probably feel obliged to push safe havens up the agenda.

John Major adopted this policy in 1991, following the first Gulf War, when he committed a Royal Marine Commando brigade to shield the Kurds. It worked: Iraq's tyrant Saddam Hussein pulled back from their territory.We cannot know what the jihadi forces will do next, but it is useful to emphasise that militarily, they are not soldiers in the same league as those of Britain and the U.S. — confronted with a serious Western army, Islamic State, with a number of young British hotheads in its ranks, would take a beating.

It would be important for any American and allied military deployment to be made under an international banner, ideally that of the United Nations; otherwise NATO. But Russia and China would almost certainly block any UN military action; and it is by no means certain that NATO allies would agree to support an intervention.

We are almost certainly witnessing the beginning of a painful and bloody break-up of states across the Middle East, which were established a century ago by colonial regimes, heedless of tribal and sectarian loyalties. It is unlikely that Iraq or Syria — and maybe several other nations, including Libya — will have remotely the same frontiers a decade from now that they claim today.

The best the West can achieve in this depressingly grim situation is to mitigate the worst consequences, try to help moderate forces, and deny power and lasting control of territory to the murderous fanatics of IS.

The Prime Minister's instincts in this situation seem hawkish, but he is acutely conscious of the political danger of a new commitment that goes wrong.

I hope that Cameron — and more importantly, Obama — set their faces against a major ground-force deployment. It would be impossible to define credible objectives, even if American and British public opinion would stand for such action.

But safe havens should not be ruled out. It will almost certainly be necessary to use some troops simply to protect the humanitarian aid missions, which are already being fired upon. Also, the RAF is likely to be committed to fly combat missions.

If all this sounds muddled and inconclusive, so it is. A regional drama has begun that will take years to play out. The West neither can nor should seek to determine its outcome. We have done damage enough in the region since 2000 by destroying its tyrants, while providing no viable alternative.

But we should at least do what little we can to protect innocent victims, of whom there will be millions before this ghastly story ends.